Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer

BMC Cancer

Table 2 Assessment of study quality

Study	Quality indicators from Newcastle-Ottawa scale									Score
	Selection				Comparability		Exposure/outcome
	1	2	3	4	5a	5b	6	7	8
Bogani et al. [31]	Yes	NO	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	9
Chen et al. [20]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	8
Ditto et al. [25]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	9
Frumovitz et al. [26]	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	7
Ghezzi et al. [27]	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	7
Lee et al. [21]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	9
Li et al. [22]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	6
Lim et al. [23]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	7
Malzoni et al. [28]	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8
Nam et al. [24]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	8
Toptas et al.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	8
Zakashansky et al. [30]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	7

For case–control studies, 1 indicates cases independently validated; 2 cases are consecutive or representative of population; 3 communitycontrols; 4 controls have no history of cervical cancer ;5A study controls for sex and age; 5B study controls for any additional factor(s); 6 ascertainment ofexposure by secure record or blinded interview; 7 same method of ascertainment for cases and controls; and 8 same non-response rate for casesand controls. For cohort studies, 1 indicates exposed cohort truly representative, 2 the non-exposed cohort drawn from the same community, 3ascertainment of exposure by secure record or structured interview, 4 outcome of interest was not present at start of study, 5A cohorts comparableon basis of sex and age, 5B cohorts comparable on other factor(s), 6 quality of outcome assessment, 7 follow-up long enough for outcomes tooccur; and 8 complete follow-up

ISSN: 1471-2407